Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/unibilium.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Unibilium is a very basic terminfo library. It doesn't depend on curses or any other library. It also doesn't use global variables, so it should be thread-safe. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mruprich/1327160-unibilium/licensecheck.txt -The MIT/X11 license is not in the .spec file under the License tag [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. -The %license macro should be specified in the .spec file -Also perhaps the MIT license should be mentioned in the LICENSE file [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -makeinstall macro is used instead [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. -According to the Packaging Guidelines the makeinstall macro should not be used [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. -Perhaps you should use https://github... form of URL for the Source0 tag [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in unibilium-devel , unibilium-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. -%check is not present [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [!]: SourceX is a working URL. -Same as above with the URL [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm unibilium-devel-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm unibilium-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm unibilium.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Terminfo -> Term info, Term-info, Terminator unibilium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US terminfo -> term info, term-info, terminator unibilium-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib unibilium.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Terminfo -> Term info, Term-info, Terminator unibilium.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US terminfo -> term info, term-info, terminator unibilium.src:31: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: unibilium-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory unibilium.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Terminfo -> Term info, Term-info, Terminator unibilium.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US terminfo -> term info, term-info, terminator unibilium-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- unibilium-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): unibilium (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) unibilium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libunibilium.so.0()(64bit) unibilium(x86-64) Provides -------- unibilium-debuginfo: unibilium-debuginfo unibilium-debuginfo(x86-64) unibilium: libunibilium.so.0()(64bit) unibilium unibilium(x86-64) unibilium-devel: pkgconfig(unibilium) unibilium-devel unibilium-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mauke/unibilium/archive/v1.2.0/unibilium-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 623af1099515e673abfd3cae5f2fa808a09ca55dda1c65a7b5c9424eb304ead8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 623af1099515e673abfd3cae5f2fa808a09ca55dda1c65a7b5c9424eb304ead8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1327160 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
> The MIT/X11 license is not in the .spec file under the License tag only tests are under that license > The %license macro should be specified in the .spec file it is used. > Also perhaps the MIT license should be mentioned in the LICENSE file see above. > makeinstall macro is used instead don't see what's wrong here > According to the Packaging Guidelines the makeinstall macro should not be used %makeinstall not, but %make_install yes. don't see problems here > Perhaps you should use https://github... form of URL for the Source0 tag no, URL is correct and downloadable > %check is not present hm, forgot it. fixing.
added %check Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/unibilium.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/unibilium
unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7631f2fefa
unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7631f2fefa
unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.